Some tourists in the Chicago Museum of Natural History are marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the guard, "Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?"
The guard replies, "They are 73 million, four years, and six months old."
"That's an awfully exact number," says the tourist. "How do you know their age so precisely?"
The guard answers, "Well, the dinosaur bones were seventy three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago."

No matter how precise your deduction is, if the starting point was already vague and imprecise (as the rules in this case are) the result won't get any better.

There may indeed be creatures with Immunities to things like fire and cold (Good catch there Mäx), but in general, Spirits are not one of those creatures (Not sure about Things like Shedim, Bugs or the Horrors (if you are using them))... And even if Shedim, Bugs or Horrors are immune to things like that, they would be listed in the description of their abilities and powers. Since General Spirits (The 10 available to Player Characters) do not list such things, then using ITNW to mimic that is not a correct useage of the ITNW ability, it is a Houserule.

Powers name is Immunity, natural weapons are only one of multiple thinks a critter can have that power for.

No, I understand the Rationale... but when a power is assumed to have properties that it does not truly have (In this case, ITNW and Elemental Effects), then problems arise...

If you read those post up there you notice that noone was assuming anythink like that, they where talking about different immunity powers not ITNW.

Vehicles have no skin, so no contact vector.

Vehicles don't breathe, so no inhalation.

Vehicles have no digestive system, so no ingestion.

Vehicles have no bloodstream, so no injection.

The point that you miss there, Mordinvan, is that ITNW does not Grant TOTAL IMMUNITY... it provides them with Increased Resistance against things that are not Magical... therefore, even if it is not magical it can still hurt them if powerful enough... Most Elemental Effects reduce that ITNW from Force x2 to just Force... they can still be hurt... it just takes more than it otherwise would... against a human with 6 points of Impact Armor, A tazer acts as if the Armor is only 3... against a Force 6 Spirit with ITNW (12 points of Armor vs non-magical things) then it acts as Armor 6 for the purposes of Damage against Tazers...

You can claim that the rules for ITNW makes them invulnerable, but you claiming it does not make it so... ITNW, as an armor, which it is, is still subject to the AP properties of the weapon used against it. Just like ALL OTHER ARMOR IN THE GAME.

It is really simple, one rule for how armor interacts to cover all the various permutations out there... the only caveats to that one simple rule is that Vehicle Armor ignores any Stun Damage (Can't Stun a Vehicle after all), and ITNW ignores Damage if the DV is below the Modified Armor Value (Again, Can't hurt a Spirit if their "Armor" protects them completely; Oddly enough, it is a lot like Vehicle Armor, except Spirit's do have a Stun Track). Now, when that Modified Armor value is lower than the DV of the Weapon, the Spirit takes damage. But they still get to resist that damage with their Armor (remember, it is still treated like Armor) + Body Attribute. They may Still take no damage from the attack, but it is not so certain anymore.

All weapons have the potential to harm a spirit by RAW (Yes, even Poisons)...

Anything else is just a house rule. You can use that Houserule you are so fond of (the gaming police are not going to knock down your door and take you off to the reesucation camps for it), but please don't make the mistake that it is RAW... It isn't.

Listen, you may not be aware of how an argument works so let me fill you in. You need to support your position with some form of reasoning, you can't just declare yourself the winner and make multiple posts where you constantly say that I'm incorrect and using a houserule. That's the height of arrogance and simply insulting.

I've been saying "in my opinion" but fuck that. Tymeaus Jalysnfein you are wrong. You are specifically assuming that, for some reason, Electricty, Acid, or any other non-magical Elemental damage is not a Normal Attack. The book very clearly defines Normal Attack as non-spell, non-foci, non-dual natured. Is your taser a spell, weapon foci or part of a dual natured critter (i.e. spirit possessed)? No? Then you are wrong by RAW and I encourage to admit the rule you play by is a houserule, as it rightfully is.

Also you really should learn to reply to multiple people in one post, because having 5-6 posts on a page be all you is annoying.

Only if you think a tazer could actually hurt it in the first place.

No I don't claim it is simply the ItNW which does, I claim it is the total absence of any component upon which the tazer could act to harm the spirit.

Only if the form of attack is something to which the spirit could conceivably be vulnerable to.

I'm afraid they are no more vulnerable to it by RAW then cars are. RAW says spirits are not made out of matter, and do not have vital organs or biological processes, you know the things which make you actually vulnerable to poisons.

This is a point I have to disagree on. Pg 92 of SM makes it rather clear that they do not possess any of the required components or systems to allow a toxin to function.

Blah, Blah, Blah... The argument HAS been supported, by more than just me, and you continue to ignore how it works. That is okay, just don't claim it is RAW when you do so...

Keep the Faith

Which the Rules refute... they take damage just like us squishy humans do...

Which they are... By RAW

Which has been explained... tehy have analogous systems that take damage like Humans do... ergo, they are susceptible...

Except again, their "Magical Systems" still react to the same types of damage that Humans and metahumans do... read it again, you will see it in there...

And again... All of your above arguments have been refuted by more than one person.

We are getting no where in this discussion except for getting on a Merry-go-round. We keep coming back to the exact same place... You do not think that Non-Magical Elemental Effects matter, while many

of the rest of us do... Your interpretation is a House Rule,

It only says they react to damage, not that acids, or poisons are capable of chemically reacting with the non matter they are composed of.

Acid burns (to name an excemple) are a form of damage. I'm not going to join the debate, as quite frankly it became a pointless circle jerk, but please stop to dodge the elephant in the room by redefining the meaning of the word "damage" just to remain right.

acids burn by cause reactions between them, and other chemicals.

You know you're a failure when your opposition can literally repeat your argument word for word and it is equally true. Hell I'm going to go ahead and explicitly do it just for fun.

Blah, Blah, Blah... The argument HAS been supported, by more than just me, and you continue to ignore how it works. That is okay, just don't claim it is RAW when you do so...

Which matters about as much as a sack of rice dropping in china as far as the rules are concerned. Also, where is your proof that "recombinant protoplasm that replicates function, mass, texture and properties near enough as to provide no physical difference" does not consist of protons amonst other elemental particles?

Hey, D2F, it reallly is okay, he will not be convinced, even with the quotes and rules sitting right in front of him... He enjoys his houserule... that's oky by me... after all, it really is just a pointless circle jerk at this point.

Keep the Faith

Which matters about as much as a sack of rice dropping in china as far as the rules are concerned. Also, where is your proof that "recombinant protoplasm that replicates function, mass, texture and properties near enough as to provide no physical difference" does not consist of protons amonst other elemental particles?

I know, that's why I won't bother any further. It just baffles me, how he can simply postulate the very law that stems his entire argumentation and never even thinks of providing any supporting evidence...

Let's not get all ad hominem.

Tymeaus: Where in the rules does it explicitly state that elemental weapons are exempt from ITNW?

The place where it says that ITNW is treated exactly like Hardened Armor

There is no such place. They say to treat it as "hardened" protection. You can pretend that said hardened armor in your House Rule though.

Just Sayin'

There is no such place. They say to treat it as "hardened" protection. You can pretend that said hardened armor in your House Rule though.

Just Sayin'

There is no such place. They say to treat it as "hardened" protection. You can pretend that said hardened armor in your House Rule though.

Just Sayin'

This Immunity Armor
We are talking about Immunity Armor, not hardened armor, not regular armor, but Immunity Armor.

is treated as
The armor is treated in a certain way. That means that some rules will apply while others will not. If the authors had intended this to be the same, they would have simply written "The Critter has Hardened Armor equal to 2 x Magic against certain attacks." Without more, we don't know what those limitations are, and therefore should apply the appropriate rules as written.

"hardened" protection
This is a reference to what the "Immunity Armor" is treated as. Interesting that the author uses quotes around the word "hardened" and writes "protection" instead of "armor," as it is used in the "Hardened Armor" entry. Quotes are often used to indicate that a word is being used in a nonstandard way (or for a variety of other purposes: indicating speech, citing materials, providing a nickname, use distinction, or irony. None of these apply). Therefore, we are left to assume that this isn't "Hardened Armor," but that the author intends to use it as illustrative of some elements.

(see Hardened Armor above),
A parenthetical, intended to explain or reference some other part of the book. In this case, the author is letting you know that you can see this rule immediately above the present one. Very convenient.

meaning that
The author is introducing an explanatory phrase, to clarify what he meant by "treated as". Lets read on.

if
A conditional statement, generally in the format "if...then" or "if...then...else".

the Damage Value
This appears to be the first element of the condition. We can look up Damage Value elsewhere, the author is assuming that this word, with unusual capitalization, has specific meaning to the reader.

does not exceed
If the Damage Value is equal to or less than some as-yet-unspecified value, some condition will be satisfied.

the Armor,
This is the value we are comparing to "the Damage Value". Note the presence of the comma, it indicates that this is either the beginning of a list or that the condition is at an end. Since the only other "Armor" we see in this sentence is "Immunity Armor", it very likely refers to that value. Note also the lack of the word "rating" to modify "Armor."

then
We now know that the condition is either met or not, if it is met, proceed. Otherwise, we'll have to look for an "else" or some other conditional context.

the attack
This is implicitly defined, however knowledgeable readers will know that "Damage Value" implies that there was an attack that occurred.

automatically
Without other action.

does no damage.
Will not damage the target, no way, no how.

In response I'll just quote biccat since apparently you lot don't know how to read.

The author would have written "treated as hardened armor (see hardened armor)" and not "treated as "hardened" protection (see hardened armor)" if he had meant your interpretation.

I'm not sure why it's hard to understand that rules can be similar and refer to each other as examples of similar effects without being identical.

the Armor,
This is the value we are comparing to "the Damage Value". Note the presence of the comma, it indicates that this is either the beginning of a list or that the condition is at an end. Since the only other "Armor" we see in this sentence is "Immunity Armor", it very likely refers to that value. Note also the lack of the word "rating" to modify "Armor."

The armor rating is modified by the attack’s AP value (see Armor Penetration, p. 162).

If the modified Damage Value of an attack does not exceed the Armor rating (modified by Armor Penetration), then it bounces harmlessly off the critter; don’t even bother to make a Damage Resistance Test. Otherwise, Hardened Armor provides both Ballistic and Impact armor equal to its rating.

In response I'll just quote biccat since apparently you lot don't know how to read.

The author would have written "treated as hardened armor (see hardened armor)" and not "treated as "hardened" protection (see hardened armor)" if he had meant your interpretation.

I'm not sure why it's hard to understand that rules can be similar and refer to each other as examples of similar effects without being identical.

Parenthetical examples are just parenthetical examples and the actual text in the rule trumps them. That second part of the sentence that you admit is contradictory to your interpretation? That's the actual rule.

In front of me is my LE SR4A book (#976) page 295:

Under Immunity to normal weapons it states that
1. Just like Hardened Armor if DV of the weapon does not exceed the Armor rating no damage is done.
2. This armor rating is treated normally for damage resistance checks.

While it does not say it is modified like hardened armor, it also does not state anything about modfied DV as opposed to the base DV of the weapon. However it makes sense not to repeat the rules, so in parenthis it says see hardened armor.


So what are arguing back and forth over again?

I cannot agree with your interpretation in the least. If they wanted it it be different than the Hardened Armor Explanation, they would not have directed you to that section. Similar, after all, means they have much in common. Your interpretation continuously points out that they are not similar in the least, so how can you now say that they are similar, but not identical...

Just to poke my head in, in case anyone is curious about this, regarding Missions... Until their is a clear FAQ/Eratta that states it one way or another, we define "Normal" damage as "Non-Magical" damage. THis isn't official, this isn't a blanket CGL statement on the subject, but since folks may ask me about it down the line, as the current Coordinator, that's my own call on it.

Bull

Bull, that doesn't answer the question. The Question is "Does the -1/2 AP of Elemental weapons (Tazers, SnS and Laser) modify the Armor given by ItNW before checking to see if the Spirit takes damage."

Do other sources of AP have effect? Bullets, Gauss, etc?

You mean in Missions, correct?

Yes, it was an expansion on the question of the -half AP that elemental weapons have.